Casino Capitalism

Lorax · October-28-09, 08:13 PM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

The tenth amendment means that if it isn't enumerated, the federal government is to be hands off in deference to the states, or, preferably [[my invective) the individual.

Or, the representatives of the people living in those states. Let's get real here. Health care has been opened up with a public option. States will have the right to "opt out" of what majority rule has mandated will be the policy going forward.

If Michigan wishes to opt out, they may.

**oladub** · October-28-09, 11:47 PM

Originally Posted by rb336

Ola, you have totally failed to show a justification for saying that the tenth ammendment applies. It clearly doesn't and was not meant to. This is NOT a matter of "a word meaning what I want it to" -- these words are very clear cut.

If something is considered necessary for providing for the general welfare of the US, how can it NOT be thoroughly legal under Section 8? section 8 says congress can lay duties and collect taxes to provide for the general welfare. it says they can make the needed laws to carry out what is deemed necessary to provide for the general welfare. NO WHERE in the constitution does it decree WHAT "the general welfare" means. Why? because, being much wiser than their children, the founding fathers knew such concept were fluid and not fixed, that circumstances might arise they could not understand in an 18th century framework.
In fact, the current debate about health care boils down to an argument of "is health care necessary to provide for the general welfare?"

Ther 10th Amendment applies to the entire Constitution unless you can find some language in the Constitution exempting Section 8 as you claim.

A Roosevelt era Supreme Court in 1936 claimed that the general welfare could be advanced with programs not enumerated in Section 8. That is to say that a Roosevelt Supreme Court over-rode the language of the Constitution. Since then, there has been almost no looking back by Democrats and Republicans.

General welfare as opposed to special interests. Ironically, your definition of general welfare has served special interests. Its the bankers that have had all their needs satisfied in the name of the general welfare while a much less expensive health car bill languishes. That is why the founders offered you the option of amending the Constitution to address circumstances which might arise they could not understand in an 18th century framework or which they could not advance at that time.

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148

Lorax · October-29-09, 08:51 AM

Sorry, but it was Rethuglican leaning supreme courts which decided that corporations implicitly had the rights of individuals, paving the way to corporate welfare.

This was not the intention of our forefathers, nor the letter and spirit of the constitution.

General welfare has been interpreted to be inclusive of individuals as a collective, not corporations as a collective.

The rules have been butchered in favor of stacking the wealthy and powerful collective corporation against the collective of individuals know as "we the people."

**rb336** · October-29-09, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by oladub

Ther 10th Amendment applies to the entire Constitution unless you can find some language in the Constitution exempting Section 8 as you claim.

A Roosevelt era Supreme Court in 1936 claimed that the general welfare could be advanced with programs not enumerated in Section 8. That is to say that a Roosevelt Supreme Court over-rode the language of the Constitution. Since then, there has been almost no looking back by Democrats and Republicans.

no, they did not over ride the language of the constitution. your reading of the items in the constitution is totally skewed by a mistaken belief that every possible program that congress can create and fund had to be "enumerated" by people who would not have any idea of what might develop in 10 years, let alone 100, 200, etc.

the item you cite regarding the national bank is one of many -- other founders felt that, indeed, section 8 DID support the national bank. and guess what? Jefferson COULD HAVE VETOED it, but he didn't!

**rb336** · October-29-09, 09:46 AM

Sureme Court 910, October Term 1936

Congress may spend money in aid of the "general welfare". Constitution, Art. I, section 8; United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1, 65; Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, supra. There have been greatstatesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents. Yet difficulties are left when the power is conceded. The line must still be drawn between one welfare and another, between particular and general. Where this shall be placed cannot be known through a formula in advance of the event. There is a middle ground or certainly a penumbra in which discretion is at large. The discretion, however, is not confided to the courts. The discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power is not an exercise of judgment. This is now familiar law. "When such a contention comes here we naturally require a showing that by no reasonable possibility can the challenged legislation fall within the wide range of discretion permitted to the Congress." United States v. Butler, supra, p. 67 Cf. Cincinnati Soap Co. v United States, May 3,1937,--U. S.--; United States v. Realty Co. 163 U. S. 427, 440; Head Money Cases, 112 U. S. 580, 595. Nor is the concept of the general welfare static. Needs that were narrow or parochial a century ago may be interwoven in our day with the well-being of the nation. What is critical or urgent changes with the times.

This item has been debate since its inception, with the Hamiltonian interpretation winning out, both in historical practice and in court. Why? because the hamiltonian version rests on the actual words, without the requirement of adding meanings that are not clearly there

**oladub** · October-29-09, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by rb336

no, they did not over ride the language of the constitution. your reading of the items in the constitution is totally skewed by a mistaken belief that every possible program that congress can create and fund had to be "enumerated" by people who would not have any idea of what might develop in 10 years, let alone 100, 200, etc.

the item you cite regarding the national bank is one of many -- other founders felt that, indeed, section 8 DID support the national bank. and guess what? Jefferson COULD HAVE VETOED it, but he didn't!

Jefferson opposed the 1st National Bank. One of the reasons he didn't veto it was that he became President in 1801 ten years after it began operating under its charter. Jefferson's position is explained in his quote at the end of post #52.

The 1936 Supreme Court did override the Constitution. Please review post #45. Section 8 clearly states that Congress is only authorized to exercize the "foregoing powers". The 1936 court ruled, instead, that Congress could exercize additional powers. Jefferson tried to clarify the difference between a 'power' and 'the purpose' of such a power-

"To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, "to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare." For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:147

I still insist that the Emperor has no clothes. Really, your world wouldn't have to collapse if you acknowledged what the 10th Amendment and Section 8 actually say instead of what you want them to mean. You could still have a State run health care program like Ontario's and every state already educates its own kids and even owns state universities. Very little would change in your world except that things like undeclared wars, executive orders, bankers bailouts, and federal debts and deficits, all justified to somehow improve our general welfare, would be less likely to occur.

Back to Jefferson. Alas, he didn't always take his own medicine either. He admitted that he had no Constitutional authority to purchase the Louisiana Territory.

**rb336** · October-29-09, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by oladub

.

seriously, what part of "provide for the general welfare" isn't "foregoing" in section 8? you say the emperor has no clothes, but the emperor is lyndon larouche[[sp?) and all those tenth-amendment states-right fundamentalists. guess what? they are wrong

jefferson
hamilton

hamilton won the debate, not jefferson

ccbatson · October-29-09, 04:54 PM

Look at what collectivism produces Rb...progressive misery...no matter what anyone says [[including broad and erroneous interpretations of the constitution to justify collectivism), it is what it is....evil.

**oladub** · October-29-09, 06:09 PM

rb wrote, "seriously, what part of "provide for the general welfare" isn't "foregoing" in section 8? you say the emperor has no clothes, but the emperor is lyndon larouche[[sp?) and all those tenth-amendment states-right fundamentalists. guess what? they are wrong
"
jefferson
hamilton

hamilton won the debate, not jefferson

Agreed. Hamilton won and should be the patron saint of both Republicans and Democrats. However, you probably should re-read Jefferson's quote explaining the relationship between 'general powers', 'powers', and 'purpose'. Your Hamiltonian interpretation obviously finds disagreement with Jefferson. Yes, this federalist/anti-federalist debate still goes on but now with both major parties espousing Hamilton's federalist statist position. Hamilton would feel so good about the due respect paid our most prominant bankers in the name of the 'general welfare'. If only 'executive orders'could be referred to using the more stately term of 'edicts' to enforce the 'general welfare'. Patience, patience, you're getting us there.

oladub, anti-federalist

Lorax wrote, "This was not the intention of our forefathers, nor the letter and spirit of the constitution. General welfare has been interpretedto be inclusive of individuals as a collective, not corporations as a collective."

Lorax, It is the letter but if you want to interpret spirits, save it for a seance.

Lorax · October-29-09, 06:48 PM

Lorax, It is the letter but if you want to interpret spirits, save it for a seance.

Instead of trading in snarky replies, perhaps you'd be better served by realizing that interpreting the Constitution has been the job of the supreme court from day one. And our Constitution has been interpreted, and amended to suit our needs as a majority rule society. You know that, but with your metric, you probably take the Bible literally as well.

Stoned any of your wives lately?

**Jimaz** · October-29-09, 10:03 PM

"The End Of Capitalism"

Personally, I don't see it as an end but rather as a radical restructuring attempting to resurrect a system that will inevitably fail.

ccbatson · October-29-09, 11:51 PM

We are seeing a leap [[from a creep) towards socialism from our mixed economy. This is exactly as predicted by economists and objectivists like Milton Freedman when you have a mixed economy. The solution is to go in the other direction...too true free market capitalism. Fortunately, I think we will swing back in that direction as a result of the misery afforded by socialism. It can't happen soon enough however.

Lorax · October-30-09, 08:20 AM

Milton Friedman was a discredited fascist economist. Trickle down DOESN'T work, it never worked, it only succeeded in bringing our standard of living down to third world levels.

ccbatson · October-30-09, 08:43 PM

You REALLY need to learn the meaning of the word Fascism Lorax...every time you misuse it as you just did, it makes you look like a fool. I have no problem beating you up in our debates as I always do, however, when you expose yourself as impaired in this way, it makes me look like I am taking advantage of the impaired...so, please bone up on this topic for next time.

**rb336** · November-02-09, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

You REALLY need to learn the meaning of the word Fascism Lorax...every time you misuse it as you just did, it makes you look like a fool.

considering your regular bastardization of the term, that is quite funny, Bats

Lorax · November-02-09, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

You REALLY need to learn the meaning of the word Fascism Lorax...every time you misuse it as you just did, it makes you look like a fool. I have no problem beating you up in our debates as I always do, however, when you expose yourself as impaired in this way, it makes me look like I am taking advantage of the impaired...so, please bone up on this topic for next time.

Thanks for getting my response pulled, Mr. Moderator.

Guess the truth squad is out protecting us from the truth again.

ccbatson · November-02-09, 09:23 PM

Giggles...I have no idea what you are talking about...apparently you never paused to think that breaking the rules may have consequences and that the rule breaker [[you) are responsible, not me.

Lorax · November-02-09, 10:02 PM

Hi Mr. Giggles, but there was nothing ad hominem or even objectionable in my pulled response, only the truth, so it's a mystery.

You are good at what you do, Giggles.

**1KielsonDrive** · November-04-09, 12:50 PM

Let's see here.......casinos are guaranteed a rate of return. Usually by guaranteeing governments a cut of the money. You can't go into a casino if you're a known winner or have a system that counteracts the casino's system. They can throw you out on to the street anytime they like, for any reason. You can spend all the money you like and NEED to spend, even if it means bankruptcy. The casino's business model guarantees that addicts have a place to satisfy their addiction. Casino owners and politicians that support them are guaranteed huge profits at the expense of most everyone else in our society. Sounds like a FREE MARKET, CAPITALISTIC, CORPORATE, business venture to me.

**oladub** · November-04-09, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by 1KielsonDrive

Let's see here.......casinos are guaranteed a rate of return. Usually by guaranteeing governments a cut of the money. You can't go into a casino if you're a known winner or have a system that counteracts the casino's system. They can throw you out on to the street anytime they like, for any reason. You can spend all the money you like and NEED to spend, even if it means bankruptcy. The casino's business model guarantees that addicts have a place to satisfy their addiction. Casino owners and politicians that support them are guaranteed huge profits at the expense of most everyone else in our society. Sounds like a FREE MARKET, CAPITALISTIC, CORPORATE, business venture to me.

You're right about the 'FREE MARKET, CAPITALISTIC, CORPORATE, business venture' aspect of gambling casinos providing fools what they want. Are you proposing closing down Indian casinos and Las Vegas? Don't forget about your State lottery though. It is a MONOPOLY, SOCIALIST, GOVERNMENT business venture in which the State guarantees itself half the money for running the game. It used to be called 'vice' before the numbers racket became a government enterprise. As you mentioned, the government also takes its cut from the FREE MARKET, CAPITALISTIC, CORPORATE, business ventures.

As far as I'm concerned, gambling is a state matter. If a state's voters want to get rid of casinos and lotteries, they can do so.